Trump Wants Congress to Vote On a Make-Believe Tax Bill

[Norm dePlume]

The Actual Tax Bill Didn’t Do Much for the Middle Class So Trump Wants Congress to Vote On a Make-Believe One

Donald Trump has spent the last few days telling anyone who will listen that Republicans are about to introduce a brand new tax cut for middle class families. On Saturday, he informed reporters in Nevada that his administration “was looking at putting in a very major tax cut for middle-income people” some time prior to November, adding that House Speaker Paul Ryan and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady had worked on the plan. Monday, before appearing at a rally for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump said Congress would introduce a “resolution” calling for a 10 percent tax cut next week, because there wasn’t time to pass a formal bill, but that the party would get to it “after the election.”

Then at the rally itself, Trump repeated all this to the crowd.

“We are going to be putting in a 10 percent tax cut for middle income families,” Trump said. “It’s going to be put in next week. Ten percent tax cut. Kevin Brady is working on it. We have been working on it for a few months. That is in addition to the big tax cuts you have already gotten.”

As far as anybody can tell, Trump appears to have made all of this up from scratch. White House staffers are baffled. There is no tax plan. They don’t even seem to know where Trump got the idea. Larry Kudlow, Trump’s top economic adviser, lamely told reporters on Wednesday that the 10 percent cut was “doable,” but the White House was “just working through it.” It’s unclear what that means. Congress isn’t even in session to vote, because members are all at home frantically campaigning before the midterms. Ryan and Brady initially stayed mum. Trump seems to either be trying to will this fantasy into being through sheer repetition, or anticipating that he can repeatedly claim something that will not happen is happening and get away with it. And now, he is roping Capitol Hill into the lie. Brady put out a statement saying his committee would “continue to work” with the White House to develop a plan. And the Washington Post reports that the White House may ask congressional Republicans to take a symbolic vote on Trump’s idea.

I suppose Mexico is gonna pay for that, too.

[scott]

I don't see the bad news here.

It might not be good news, but it's not bad news.

[Tom Servo]

"Trump is delusional" isn't bad news? Got it.

[Norm dePlume]

I don't think it's a delusion. I think it's a scam.

[80zephyr]

I don't think it's a delusion. I think it's a scam.

Lol. That'd be great. Harry Reid would be proud.

Mark

[Newman]

I don't think it's a delusion. I think it's a scam.

I'll take a "scam" tax cut any day.

On the surface it reminds me of Trump's offer of amnesty for Dreamers early this year. Suddenly he offers the Dems what they've demanded, only to see them back off. So they've been complaining that what we need is a "middle class tax cut."

Here it is, fellows.

I haven't looked for any Democratic reaction, but if they are all in on the #Resist lunacy, they'll reject this tax cut as too expensive, since they'll want to "pay for it" by rescinding the earlier tax cuts, of course. That will be a hard argument to make at this point, but we'll see.


(With immigration, of course, the Democrat's objective was to have an "issue," not to resolve anything, so they couldn't agree regardless. Same with other "issues" like gun control. They keep going to the "common sense gun control" chant, like "comprehensive immigration reform," which they know will not get passed. But maybe it will create a few more Democrats....)

[Norm dePlume]

On the surface it reminds me of Trump's offer of amnesty for Dreamers early this year. Suddenly he offers the Dems what they've demanded, only to see them back off.

You keep repeating this falsehood.

[Djharkavy]

You keep repeating this falsehood.

It's Trump. Truth doesn't matter to his supporters as much as annoying "libs"

Just look at the previous post. He doesn't care if there's a cut, as much as he wants to get Democrats to contradict themselves.

[scott]

It's Trump. Truth doesn't matter to his supporters as much as annoying "libs"

Just look at the previous post. He doesn't care if there's a cut, as much as he wants to get Democrats to contradict themselves.

Whereas with the Obama faithful, the "Lie of the Year" is not a lie according to y'all.

[Newman]

You keep repeating this falsehood.

It's Trump. Truth doesn't matter to his supporters as much as annoying "libs"

Just look at the previous post. He doesn't care if there's a cut, as much as he wants to get Democrats to contradict themselves.

Norm's link to this post in an earlier thread is deliberately (I believe) misleading:

They did take the deal. Trump rejected it, because the bipartisan proposal that was worked out allowed too many immigrants from "shithole countries", or possibly "shithouse countries."

The "shithole" kerfuffle was always a red herring, much like the current froth about connecting "nationalist" with "things Nazis said" or whatever. Norm would have been more honest to link to an earlier post of his in that same thread, in which he linked to a CNN synopsis of the negotiating:

White House proposes path to citizenship for 1.8 million people
January 26, 2018.

President Donald Trump is proposing giving 1.8 million young undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship in exchange for $25 billion for his long-promised wall and a host of other strict immigration reforms, according to a White House framework proposed Thursday.

Trump's citizenship comments add to immigration confusion on Capitol hill
In what the White House framed as a "dramatic concession" and "compromise," Trump would accept a path to citizenship not just for the roughly 700,000 undocumented immigrants were covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program when it was ended. But the proposal would also cover those undocumented immigrants who meet the DACA criteria but did not sign up and even more who would be newly eligible under the proposal's timeframe requirements -- giving legal status and a pathway to citizenship to about 1.8 million people.

In return, the White House would like to see a $25 billion investment in a trust for border infrastructure and technology, as well as more funds for personnel, and an end to family migration beyond spouses and minor children. The diversity visa lottery would also be abolished, though the visas would be reallocated so that the backlog of people already waiting for family visas and high-skilled immigration green cards would be processed.

In what may end up being the most contentious piece of the proposal, the White House is also looking to close "legal loopholes" that will allow it to deport more immigrants, specifically as it relates to undocumented immigrants from countries that don't border the United States -- which would likely include changes in immigration enforcement authority that would be virtually impossible for Democrats to swallow....

They never got to that last bit cited here, which looks to be particularly relevant in light of current events, because the earlier points, particularly (in my opinion) The Wall was too galling itself for the Dems to consider.

It still is, no doubt, but I'd bet the family cow that it gets built now. And the amnesty provisions will wait. Democrats will be left smirking that Mexico didn't pay for it. And that too may be a short-lived talking point.

The Democrats blew it because they would not negotiate with the Cheeto president they hate so much. They'd rather scream helplessly at the sky.

As for this bit from the usually more judicious Djharkavy,

He doesn't care if there's a cut, as much as he wants to get Democrats to contradict themselves.

it ignores the light-hearted smilie attached, and the scare quotes around the word scam.

I thought I was clear that the Dems would call a tax cut a "scam" and oppose it, exactly like they called the earlier tax cuts "crumbs" and opposed it. I'll have to be more direct, then:

The Dems will oppose any tax cut proposed by this president because,

1. they oppose tax cuts,
   It's a threat to their plans to expand government services. For this reason they like to insist that tax cuts be "paid for," and they also oppose most non-social spending such as military budgets.
2. and Trump proposed it.
   Resist. That boat is taking on a lot of water, but so far it's all they've got.

[80zephyr]

You keep repeating this falsehood.

Bullshit. Deals come with conditions, and Trump felt that the Democratic conditions were unacceptable.

Mark

[80zephyr]

Norm's link to this post in an earlier thread is deliberately (I believe) misleading:

The "shithole" kerfuffle was always a red herring, much like the current froth about connecting "nationalist" with "things Nazis said" or whatever. Norm would have been more honest to link to an earlier post of his in that same thread, in which he linked to a CNN synopsis of the negotiating:

White House proposes path to citizenship for 1.8 million people
January 26, 2018.

They never got to that last bit cited here, which looks to be particularly relevant in light of current events, because the earlier points, particularly (in my opinion) The Wall was too galling itself for the Dems to consider.

It still is, no doubt, but I'd bet the family cow that it gets built now. And the amnesty provisions will wait. Democrats will be left smirking that Mexico didn't pay for it. And that too may be a short-lived talking point.

The Democrats blew it because they would not negotiate with the Cheeto president they hate so much. They'd rather scream helplessly at the sky.

As for this bit from the usually more judicious Djharkavy, it ignores the light-hearted smilie attached, and the scare quotes around the word scam.

I thought I was clear that the Dems would call a tax cut a "scam" and oppose it, exactly like they called the earlier tax cuts "crumbs" and opposed it. I'll have to be more direct, then:

The Dems will oppose any tax cut proposed by this president because,

1. they oppose tax cuts,
   It's a threat to their plans to expand government services. For this reason they like to insist that tax cuts be "paid for," and they also oppose most non-social spending such as military budgets.
2. and Trump proposed it.
   Resist. That boat is taking on a lot of water, but so far it's all they've got.

We have a winner!!

Mark

[Norm dePlume]

Norm's link to this post in an earlier thread is deliberately (I believe) misleading:

The "shithole" kerfuffle was always a red herring, much like the current froth about connecting "nationalist" with "things Nazis said" or whatever. Norm would have been more honest to link to an earlier post of his in that same thread, in which he linked to a CNN synopsis of the negotiating:

White House proposes path to citizenship for 1.8 million people
January 26, 2018.

They never got to that last bit cited here, which looks to be particularly relevant in light of current events, because the earlier points, particularly (in my opinion) The Wall was too galling itself for the Dems to consider.

Let me explain how this works. First, you say something false. Now, at this point, I don't charge out of the gate with, "Hey you fucking liar" because not every instance of false information is lying. You could simply be mistaken. Or, you could be an innocent victim of misinformation. In order for me to consider it a lie you have to know better, and it has to be intentional. So I like to start out with something like, "Hey, that false thing you said there is false. Here's is correct information." And if you're simply mistaken, I would expect something like, "Oh, I see. Point taken." Or, if you find fault in the information I provided, I expect evidence of said fault. But, if you persist in the falsehood, at that point: 1) you do know better, and 2) it is intentional.

The falsehood I quoted you saying was that Trump made an offer on DACA and the Democrats backed off. Here, I'll quote you again so you have no excuse for misunderstanding:

On the surface it reminds me of Trump's offer of amnesty for Dreamers early this year. Suddenly he offers the Dems what they've demanded, only to see them back off.

The link I provided -- and the snippet I quoted -- show that they didn't back off. They negotiated a bipartisan agreement and Trump rejected it. Yes, there was some controversy about the language Trump used in that meeting. But there was no controversy about the fact that a bipartisan group of Senators presented Trump with a bipartisan agreement and he rejected it. And that fact shows the falsity of your claim.

[Norm dePlume]

Norm would have been more honest to link to an earlier post of his in that same thread, in which he linked to a CNN synopsis of the negotiating:

White House proposes path to citizenship for 1.8 million people
January 26, 2018.

Your perverted notions of honesty aside, that link is from January 26, well after his rejection of the bipartisan agreement and after he moved the goalposts. Trump's DACA offer started on January 9, when he had a televised meeting at the White House. And that offer was a lot different. Here is the entire meeting, as posted by the White House:

Some highlights:

@34:45 Trumps says, "When this group comes back with an agreement, I'm signing it."

@35:30 Feinstein asks, "What about a clean DACA bill?" Trump, not understanding what is meant by a "clean bill" agrees, whereupon Kevin McCarthy jumps in to stiffen up the President and specify that any DACA agreement must include border security.

@39:00 David Perdue says that any agreement must deal with so-called "chain migration."

@42:30 Trump, having heard about time constraints from Jeff Flake, says, "I think that's why we make it a phase II. We do a phase I, which is DACA and security, and we do phase II which is comprehensive reform."

@53:20 Trump says, "If they come to me with things I'm not in love with, I'm gonna do it."

And so, when presented with a Graham-Durbin proposal that dealt with DACA, provided money for border security, and dealt with so-called "chain migration" he naturally said not good enough. Shithole countries.

Here is what was in the proposal he rejected:

According to details provided by aides, the deal would allow DACA recipients a minimum 10-year path to citizenship and allocate at least $1.5 billion for design and construction of a border fence as well as at least $1 billion more for additional border surveillance, technology and manpower; specify that parents of DACA recipients would be ineligible for citizenship; and replace the diversity lottery program with a new system dividing the visas between people who have received temporary protected status and people selected on the basis of merit from low-immigration countries.

I don't expect you to take my word for anything. I provide backup for my claims. Now you know better. Now you have no excuse.

[Newman]

Dems wanted a "clean" amnesty deal? Trump wanted The Wall. A clean amnesty bill has been a nonstarter for years, Sen. "Grahamnesty" and the aptly name Flake notwithstanding. Trump's negotiating position was standard fare for a long time, particularly The Wall. Perhaps the Dems thought he would drop it in the face of their withering criticism. I believe the Democrats have misunderestimated Trump since he rode down the elevator, and they continue to do so.

I'll stand with my conviction at present, that The Wall will get built, sooner now than later.